The hullaballoo over this seems to be based (from an examination of the released documents, .pdf warning) the release of various forms which violate laws on the release of tax information. First, we need to look at the definition of what constitutes a document or information that would be a felony under 26 USC § 610

b) DefinitionsFor purposes of this section-(1) ReturnThe term "return" means any tax or information return, declaration of estimated tax, or claim for refund required by, or provided for or permitted under, the provisions of this title which is filed with the Secretary by, on behalf of, or with respect to any person, and any amendment or supplement thereto, including supporting schedules, attachments, or lists which are supplemental to, or part of, the return so filed.(2) Return informationThe term "return information" means-(A) a taxpayer's identity, the nature, source, or amount of his income, payments, receipts, deductions, exemptions, credits, assets, liabilities, net worth, tax liability, tax withheld, deficiencies, overassessments, or tax payments, whether the taxpayer's return was, is being, or will be examined or subject to other investigation or processing, or any other data, received by, recorded by, prepared by, furnished to, or collected by the Secretary with respect to a return or with respect to the determination of the existence, or possible existence, of liability (or the amount thereof) of any person under this title for any tax, penalty, interest, fine, forfeiture, or other imposition, or offense,(B) any part of any written determination or any background file document relating to such written determination (as such terms are defined in section 6110 (b)) which is not open to public inspection under section 6110, [and two other parts that are totally irrelevant, so I snipped them]

JW specifically called out forms 990 and 1024. Form 990 is titled "Return of Organization Exempt from Tax" and would appear to be a smoking gun. But Form 990's are required to be publicly available. For example, here (.pdf warning) is Crossroads GPS' 2010 Form 990. It's a document with an exception under (B) - since the document is legally open to public inspection, the government is allowed to release it. Form 1024s are also available to the public on request, but that's irrelevant since they are not directly tax data anyway - they're an Application for Recognition of Exemption under 501(a). They are not a return, no tax is calculated, levied, or paid, and the definition of return information requires that the information be "received by, recorded by, prepared by, furnished to, or collected by the Secretary with respect to a return [or violation of the law]". Which it's not. So neither of the two named on the JW announcement are covered by this felony language.

Looking through the release of documents, there's a pile of additional forms, but those are in the same boat - they're forms that state you paid a fee to submit an exemption application, powers of attorney, private business information, and so on, but none of it is a return or return information. There may be some privacy issues violated, which I've no idea either way on, but 26 USC § 610 pretty clearly doesn't apply.

skullkrusher:Doctor Funkenstein: skullkrusher: jaytkay: "...according to the Washington Examiner and a host of media sources..."

[imageshack.us image 250x272]

it's like a badge of honor for you guys. Amazing.

To weigh the merits of the source before making judgment to better ensure that the information we're considering isn't tantamount to the testimony of a third grader that claims to be good friends with Sasquatch. Yeah, kinda.

not really - actually, what a thinking person does is find facts to refute the information. What you do is pretend the information doesn't exist because it is from a biased source.It doesn't make the information go away nor does it make it any more or less true.

Your basic premise is sound, but doesn't scale in practice. In the real world once a source has proven itself unreliable multiple times it is perfectly reasonable to no longer give them the benefit of the doubt and stop wasting your own time proving it over and over.

TL:DR; I don't bother fact checking the homeless guy that jacks off behind the Chick Filet and yells about McDonald's being owned by vampires. At least not anymore.

skullkrusher:Doctor Funkenstein: skullkrusher: jaytkay: "...according to the Washington Examiner and a host of media sources..."

[imageshack.us image 250x272]

it's like a badge of honor for you guys. Amazing.

To weigh the merits of the source before making judgment to better ensure that the information we're considering isn't tantamount to the testimony of a third grader that claims to be good friends with Sasquatch. Yeah, kinda.

not really - actually, what a thinking person does is find facts to refute the information. What you do is pretend the information doesn't exist because it is from a biased source.It doesn't make the information go away nor does it make it any more or less true.

Fair enough. Let's assume the facts as presented are accurate. The article claims the following:

This is a felony as Section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code dictates that an IRS official - which Lerner was at the time - may not disclose either income tax return information or taxpayer income tax return information - not even to another governmental agency.

Section 6103 directs thusly:

(i) Disclosure to Federal officers or employees for administration of Federal laws not relating to tax administration (1) Disclosure of returns and return information for use in criminal investigations (A) In general Except as provided in paragraph (6), any return or return information with respect to any specified taxable period or periods shall, pursuant to and upon the grant of an ex parte order by a Federal district court judge or magistrate judge under subparagraph (B), be open (but only to the extent necessary as provided in such order) to inspection by, or disclosure to, officers and employees of any Federal agency who are personally and directly engaged in-(i) preparation for any judicial or administrative proceeding pertaining to the enforcement of a specifically designated Federal criminal statute (not involving tax administration) to which the United States or such agency is or may be a party,(ii) any investigation which may result in such a proceeding, or(iii) any Federal grand jury proceeding pertaining to enforcement of such a criminal statute to which the United States or such agency is or may be a party,solely for the use of such officers and employees in such preparation, investigation, or grand jury proceeding.

The tea party is a purely political organization that specifically endorses and opposes people for office (Translation: It's a GOP group that passes BS along about Democratic candidates and elected officials for the purpose of impacting elections). The FEC obviously (and most likely correctly) believed they were in violation of law and made a written request for certain information, according to the article. Section 6103 specifically provides for the disclosure of such information to other federal agencies in the course of investigations. The article, very boldly and inaccurately, states that the IRS is prohibited from disclosing such information when the Internal Revenue Code that they specifically cite for such a prohibition boldly provides for such disclosure.

The short version: The teabaggers are, once again, full of shiat and the source of this fantasy (TFA) is painfully wrong.

skullkrusher:Doctor Funkenstein: skullkrusher: jaytkay: "...according to the Washington Examiner and a host of media sources..."

[imageshack.us image 250x272]

it's like a badge of honor for you guys. Amazing.

To weigh the merits of the source before making judgment to better ensure that the information we're considering isn't tantamount to the testimony of a third grader that claims to be good friends with Sasquatch. Yeah, kinda.

not really - actually, what a thinking person does is find facts to refute the information. What you do is pretend the information doesn't exist because it is from a biased source.It doesn't make the information go away nor does it make it any more or less true.

The problem is that the conservative media empire keeps using itself to independently corroborate stories that turn out to be bogus. And this has been going of for years.

skullkrusher:jaytkay: "...according to the Washington Examiner and a host of media sources..."

[imageshack.us image 250x272]

it's like a badge of honor for you guys. Amazing.

If we took every self referencing story from the echo chamber seriously we'd be stuck in a vortex of derp. There's nothing wrong with ignoring a "story" until it references reputable sources and loses the quotes.

skullkrusher:jaytkay: "...according to the Washington Examiner and a host of media sources..."

[imageshack.us image 250x272]

it's like a badge of honor for you guys. Amazing.

To weigh the merits of the source before making judgment to better ensure that the information we're considering isn't tantamount to the testimony of a third grader that claims to be good friends with Sasquatch. Yeah, kinda.

grumpfuff:Animatronik:She's also a career federal employee who used to work for the FEC enforcement division.

And this means..what?

You have personal knowledge of how she voted and how her friends voted over the last ten years?

Fair enough, no I don't. But Bush wasn't exactly known for appointing Democrats.

What this is really about, more than D v. R., is the government acting to protect itself by squelching voices that don't want to see govt or its revenue collecting power grow.

Yes, how dare the government point out that groups with an inherent political interest should not be granted tax exempt status.

If, as it happens to be the case, the Ds are the pro-government party, then the Ds become the vehicle for groups of people acting to inhibit political groups that want to rein in govt.

You mean how the IRS conducted increased scrutiny on both conservative and liberal groups that applied for tax exempt status?

And, last I checked, none of the conservative groups were denied. But oh noes, they had to do PAPERWORK! While continuing to operate as normal! The horror!

Don't be fooled by any of this. Republicans don't care about the ethics of this. They only fark this particular chicken because they think they can somehow convince people with IQs above room temperature that an IRS official (appointed by Bush) being sloppy with paperwork is somehow part of a massive conspiracy by Obama to oppress Real American Patriots.

mjm323s:The Majority of Fark commenters believe their liberal side is beyond reproach. They discredit the source or take the conversation to how republicans are bad rather than researching both sides and determine what is facts and what is editorial from both sides.

To say one side is always right and the other is always wrong in politics is complete ignorance... I'm not going to change your mind on this but if you even consider reading another article from the other side to get perspective, I'll think I have accomplished something today.

Except you missing one small important fact. Republicans (at least those at this time) have been close to 100 percent wrong on just about everything. What makes you think that will change? It's almost as if they make it a point to be wrong. The bad part is then they spin like a top or lie like hell to cover up the fact that they were wrong. Even worse they keep repeating the lies over and over and over. Just because a lie is repeated does not make it the truth. Only rubes fall for that. So let me ask you why we should read a perspective that will eventually be proven wrong. Reading something by some author who wants to spin the truth or part of the truth into something it is not is not perspective it's propaganda.

The only perspective I see coming from those on the political far right is GET OBAMA and OBSTRUCT. Not help the country with it's problems but get the guy in the white house. It's farked up and you know it.

mjm323s:Here let me help you be an informed citizen... http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/23/lois-lerner-irs-official -tea-party-scandal-retires/?page=all

Let me stop you right there.Your link doesn't work, but all I need to know is in the address. Tea Party Scandal. The one that was entirely fabricated by Darryl Issa's cherry picking?

mjm323s:You keep proving my point by referencing this linked article and claiming that what happened is not an issue because the article is biased. I'll agree that it is not a great source but it is not the only one that has brought it to the public forum.

No, you keep proving mine. I never said there is no issue. I said that those bringing the issues are not concerned with fixing them, regularly lie about them, and have proven time and time again they aren't worth listening to.Even if they begin with a legitimate complaint, it quickly, sometimes immediately, changes gears in order to score political points. The first farking sentence of the article makes it sound like Lerner was Obama's direct appointee/employee rather than part of an independent agency and put there by George Bush. If that's the kind of disingenuous bullshiat that's going to be peppered throughout the piece, I'm better off stopping there.

When one side isn't trustworthy, isn't operating in good faith, they deserve all the scorn and ridicule they get, not an equal seat at the big boy table.

My reading is that there is a set of data, "a taxpayer's identity, the nature, source, or amount of his income, payments, receipts, deductions, exemptions, credits, assets, liabilities, net worth, tax liability, tax withheld, deficiencies, overassessments, or tax payments, whether the taxpayer's return was, is being, or will be examined or subject to other investigation or processing, or any other data" which includes pretty much any data within or relating to a tax return. You're asserting that the catchall 'any other data' bit only re-asserts the previous list. Which is kind of self-defeating.

But it's irrelevant, since what exactly constitutes the data relating to a return is not the important part, as I stated over and over again. What is important is that the data within the 1024 is not return related data: "with respect to a return". If it is data not with respect to a return, it is not data that is protected under this subsection. And since applications are not returns, none of the part you're quibbling about matters.

And your whole grammatical argument is nonsense, since there's a comma after 'data' which denotes the end of the list. Contrast to "by the Secretary with respect to a return".

So, let's recap: I assumed that a known lying website, referenced by a known liar, was almost assuredly full of lies, and a waste of my time to bother looking at.

And subsequent analysis by someone who has more patience with liars than I, and who is a professional, confirmed that the lying website referenced by a liar was in fact lying, and I am somehow at fault.

And in doing so, people learned long ago the right was disingenuous and untrustworthy.

And here they are, bringing up old news, yet again, with another "WE TOLD YOU THIS WAS A SCANDAL". They haven't been correct so far, and the previous information available shows their motivations and methods. If they hadn't already proven themselves to be out for Obama's blood, damn the facts, I might have given this more than a passing glance. But since they stretch in the very first farking sentence to link Lerner to Obama, I think I can name the tune in that many notes. It's something I've heard before.

HeadLever:So it is fact-less even though it supplies the supporting documents that you are not going to read. Are you for real?

Study it out?

Pointing to a giant, impenetrable wall of raw information with no specific indication about where exactly I'm supposed to find the outrageous, tyrannical violation of human rights and privacy doesn't count as "facts".

Wake me when a lawyer - or at least someone with some journalistic integrity - goes through it and summarizes exactly what the problem is, with quotes from the emails, legal citations, etc. etc. Preferably in under 3 pages.

TFA is an almost-factless outragegasm linking to another outragegasm which in turn links to a 176 page .pdf document that I have no intention spending 3 hours examining in detail to determine just exactly how full of shiat subby et. al. is.

skullkrusher:verbal_jizm: skullkrusher: jaytkay: "...according to the Washington Examiner and a host of media sources..."

[imageshack.us image 250x272]

it's like a badge of honor for you guys. Amazing.

If we took every self referencing story from the echo chamber seriously we'd be stuck in a vortex of derp. There's nothing wrong with ignoring a "story" until it references reputable sources and loses the quotes.

unless, of course, it is a story you like, then no reputable references required to take at face value

Nope. I'll wait for reputable sources until I jump all over it. I have to reference everything I say in a grant proposal so I expect at least a modicum of the same discipline for news.

This was reported back awhile ago. The whole kerfuffle was that it was sent through personal e-mail accounts to do official business. But this is the Examiner and they have to spin it for persecution factors.

mjm323s:Fart_Machine: mjm323s: I would argue because Democrats don't understand the concept of Math they are running this country in to the ground and are going to really disillusion the "rich" that make over 30K a year. The principles of Democrats are admirable but typically they are far removed from reality.

Due to the principles of a free democracy and the fact that we have been at odds war with so many communist countries people rightfully fear a move toward these socialist principles. Semantics or not we were founded on a free democracy and had been one of the most admired countries in the world. Through this administration more people have been dependent on the goverment than ever. Personal Responsibilty is taxed as the lazy find it easier to get benefits.

I am not saying all entitlement programs are bad, they have just become far too extensive and the math does not work for those that do work hard. The votes though for the politicians are great though.

Fixed it so the point is not missed.

Well I'm glad you moved from BSAB to full-on GOP shill. Have fun with that.

Not sure what BSAB is, just trying to match the intensity of the other side. Am I doing it right?

youmightberight:d23: bigsteve3OOO: It hurts to admit that the progressive leadership is as dirty as the GOP. The worst part must be that they never pass any law that actually takes money from the rich and gives to the poor. Look at Obama care. The 1% are not impacted to the extent that the middle class person is. Why is that? Could it be that they work for the same masters as the GOP? I think so.

There isn't any "progressive" leaders in the Congress... except maybe Bernie Sanders. That's why constant cries of "socialism" are so pathetic. No one wants a socialistic society in the U.S., and that includes Sanders. Intelegent social programs, yes, Socialism or Socialism by force (Communism), no.

Sooo.....

You want socialist programs......

But that's not socialism.

What because we only half-assed it?

You may not view them as one in the same because its "just one" program (at a time). By the time we go through 60years of just one program we're at socialism. Yeah it wasn't as dramatic as flipping a switch over night but the end results are the same.

So I ask you, if someone just wants to add a socialist program, could they not be considered as contributing to socialism and therefore a socialist?

Works for terrorist....

The fact that you regard "socialist" to be a dirty word is your problem - not the rest of society's.Your obsession with semantics doesn't concern me - or any intelligent person. The Right is failing in America because they are too dumb to figure that out.The McCarthy-ites got their asses stomped in the late fifties because they made the same mistake - thinking that yelling "communist" at everything they didn't like would convince normal people - it doesn't.It only convinces those mental defectives who are prone to radical-right dogma to begin with.

Ihatelibs: Just like her ARROGANT CRIMINAL MASSA OBOGUS. He TOO is a Felon and BEYOND. FRAUD ILLEGAL KENYA TRAITOR

Oh wow, that guy's brain is seriously misfiring. I wonder if he has physical ticks too.

it's not the best commenter handle but unfortunately skullkrusher was already taken there.

Ahhh, Republicans. Without their burning hatred of libs, they would just blow away, like dust on the wind.

/Libs means "people smarter than you"

Well, people who THINK they're smarter than you. And better than you. Which goes a long way toward explaining Obamacare.

I think there are people in the world who actually ARE smarter - than you or me both.Do you even acknowledge that there are people who are smarter, and know better than you?

There's no doubt that you would acknowledge that there are people way smarter than you are, who know better than you, and that they are in the W.H. creating a better future for you, working hard for that....

Beginning with that website that they are personally responsible for.

I'm not surprised at your response - it's always the defectives who think they have no intellectual superiors.It's the inbreeding of white racists - makes 'em get stupider every generation..

Zeno-25:nyseattitude: Cletus C.: Fart_Machine: This was reported back awhile ago. The whole kerfuffle was that it was sent through personal e-mail accounts to do official business. But this is the Examiner and they have to spin it for persecution factors.

It says the information on her emails was received after a public records request from Judicial Watch.

It seems obvious the IRS should not be sharing personal information with anyone unless by court order. Thus, the illegality of that, if it's what she did.

If she was sharing only information from conservative groups then it seems obviously political.

The knee-jerk dismissal of anything that may make the administration look bad is tiring.

It could also be a justified knee-jerk dismissal based on six consecutive years of utter bullshiat lies, wild conspiracy theory's, temper tantrum throwing, mouth breathing, hypocritical, self righteous, right wing assholes.

THIS. Conservatives expect to be taken seriously and with good faith after their track record for the last 10, hell 20 years? Yeah right. Most times, you can just listen to them and expect the opposite of what they're saying to be more reflective of reality.

The Conservatives turn up the derp to 11 and then cry when no one will take them seriously. All outrage all the time is tiresome.

Cataholic:The forms 1023 and 1024 are "applications for exempt status," not "annual information returns." You are citing the Internal Revenue Manual, not the US Code. Part 2 of what you are citing states, "This disclosure authority pertains to any information required to be filed by these organizations or trusts in accordance with IRC §§ 6033 and 6034." Section 6033 is the section of the code that requires a nonprofit to file a Form 990. The section of the IRM that deals with form 1024 is 11.3.9.3.

1). Crazy allegations from a suspicious source.2) farmers justifiably mock it3) fark conservatories crank the derp up to 11 calling out everyone for being "intellectually dishonest" for not bothering to directly refute obviously crazy story4). Several folks take the time to refute the crazy story completely validating original farkers mocking5). Fark conservatives run away, retreat into nonsense arguments or sullenly call out folks for being mean to them

Fart_Machine:Also Judicial Watch totally doesn't sound like they have a right-wing agenda.

They're non-partisan independents, who simply want lower taxes.

For example:'Judicial Watch founder Larry Klayman took to Renew America to demand Americans "take matters into our own hands and wage a Second American Revolution" against President Barack Obama, who he calls "our mullah in chief."'

mjm323s:grumpfuff: mjm323s: So just to be clear, your opinion is that we should dismiss any of the information in the article because it is a bad sourceand Levin called for her resignation because he did not like her giving tax exempt status to conservative and progressive groupsand this issue is over witheven if it may be possible that this person was sharing information with departments that per the law requires specific people to sign off on in order to release said information?

1) I never claimed we should dismiss the article2) Levin's quote says he called for her resignation for that reason, yes(though I don't know if she personally approved them)3) The issue is these groups, liberal and conservative, should have never been approved. There's also a minor issue that apparently she used a non-secure email to send the information.4) The "law requires" part has been shown, in this very thread, to not say what you're claiming it says.

If this was such a big deal, why didn't Issa bring it up in the original hearings about it?

Like Lerner after this one, I'm pleading the fifth...I don't agree with 4, there are several ways to interpret law so if you think I am going to take some Farkers thread as being absolute, you haven't read my other posts. As far as the Issa comment as I have previously mentioned at the end of the hearing additional information was being requested so in his eyes this issue is not over and they are still gathering information, stay tuned.

So if it's ok for you to dismiss another Farker out of hand, why can't we do the same with you? Not saying he should be taken as absolute, mind you, it's just "Well I disagree" is hardly a convincing argument.

As to your point about Issa, from what I can tell, he had this information already at the hearing.

mjm323s:So just to be clear, your opinion is that we should dismiss any of the information in the article because it is a bad sourceand Levin called for her resignation because he did not like her giving tax exempt status to conservative and progressive groupsand this issue is over witheven if it may be possible that this person was sharing information with departments that per the law requires specific people to sign off on in order to release said information?

1) I never claimed we should dismiss the article2) Levin's quote says he called for her resignation for that reason, yes(though I don't know if she personally approved them)3) The issue is these groups, liberal and conservative, should have never been approved. There's also a minor issue that apparently she used a non-secure email to send the information.4) The "law requires" part has been shown, in this very thread, to not say what you're claiming it says.

If this was such a big deal, why didn't Issa bring it up in the original hearings about it?

Cletus C.:Fart_Machine: This was reported back awhile ago. The whole kerfuffle was that it was sent through personal e-mail accounts to do official business. But this is the Examiner and they have to spin it for persecution factors.

It says the information on her emails was received after a public records request from Judicial Watch.

It seems obvious the IRS should not be sharing personal information with anyone unless by court order. Thus, the illegality of that, if it's what she did.

If she was sharing only information from conservative groups then it seems obviously political.

The knee-jerk dismissal of anything that may make the administration look bad is tiring.

It could also be a justified knee-jerk dismissal based on six consecutive years of utter bullshiat lies, wild conspiracy theory's, temper tantrum throwing, mouth breathing, hypocritical, self righteous, right wing assholes.

mjm323s:grumpfuff: mjm323s: The Majority of Fark commenters believe their liberal side is beyond reproach. They discredit the source or take the conversation to how republicans are bad rather than researching both sides and determine what is facts and what is editorial from both sides.

To say one side is always right and the other is always wrong in politics is complete ignorance... I'm not going to change your mind on this but if you even consider reading another article from the other side to get perspective, I'll think I have accomplished something today.

You mean like how you claimed a Democrat called for her resignation, I posted about how you were stretching the truth, and you totally ignored it?

Or like how other people did do that research, did post facts, did point out what was editorial, and you just ignored them?

How's the weather up on that cross? Would you mind coming down and having an actual, honest debate?

I didn't really understand your post. I read it He called for her resignation due to mismanagement. Not sure how calling for resignation can be confused. It seemed like the 2nd paragraph he did try and save political face.

The 2nd paragraph WAS his statement. The very first sentence of his statement blatantly disagrees with you

"Lois Lerner is being held responsible for her gross mismanagement of the IRS tax-exempt division, which led to improper handling of applications for tax-exempt status, whether conservative and progressive. "

Admittedly, I read a bit more on other sites(you know, that "research" thing you talked about), and he's upset with her because these groups were approved in the first place, not because of the increased scrutiny like you were implying.

(as a side not, "whether conservative and progressive?")

I should have prefaced my first sentence by saying based on my readings of the comments in this thread. I don't think I'm better than anyone just adding my opinion. The same thing can be said on any similar conservative news site

Then you obviously haven't been reading the same thread as me, because there are a lot of refutations of your, and other, conservative statements grounded in fact. They are conveniently being ignored or dismissed out of hand, while instead focusing on the "stopped reading right there" comments.

mjm323s:The Majority of Fark commenters believe their liberal side is beyond reproach. They discredit the source or take the conversation to how republicans are bad rather than researching both sides and determine what is facts and what is editorial from both sides.

To say one side is always right and the other is always wrong in politics is complete ignorance... I'm not going to change your mind on this but if you even consider reading another article from the other side to get perspective, I'll think I have accomplished something today.

You mean like how you claimed a Democrat called for her resignation, I posted about how you were stretching the truth, and you totally ignored it?

Or like how other people did do that research, did post facts, did point out what was editorial, and you just ignored them?

How's the weather up on that cross? Would you mind coming down and having an actual, honest debate?

So somebody actually seriously thinks the moral of the parable of the Boy Who Cried Wolf is that if some asshole repeatedly lies to you, and says there's a wolf and it's really a toy poodle or nothing, you are supposed to believe him every time, because someday there really will be a wolf.Like Cosby said: brain damage.

Just as an aside - the moral of that parable is that you SHOULDN'T BE A LYING ASSHOLE.

Err, for clarification. Best I can tell, Sander called for Lerner's resignation because these groups(both liberal and conservative) were approved in the first place, NOT because of the Republican witch hunt.

mjm323s:Question for ya: if this was a banking CEO that was caught doing some illegal stuff and after they resigned the Huffington Post found some additional evidence that would help in pressing charges, would that be different?

No

mjm323s:Question for ya: if this was a banking CEO that was caught doing some illegal stuff and after they resigned the Huffington PostNew York Times found some additional evidence that would help in pressing charges, would that be different?

Yes

And they didn't find anything additional, the emails are from a FOIA request so the government already had the information in question. Unless you're asserting that the congressional investigation somehow neglected to request email records.

mjm323s:jaytkay: mjm323s: I'll agree that it is not a great source but it is not the only one that has brought it to the public forum.

There is one source, Judicial Watch.

All the other "sources" are pointing to the same Judicial Watch claims.

Question for ya: if this was a banking CEO that was caught doing some illegal stuff and after they resigned the Huffington Post found some additional evidence that would help in pressing charges, would that be different?

Apparently Judicial watch has some credibility for the news outletsblogs if they are sourcing them.

ChicagOpinion:When the libs don't like a story, they criticize the source - knowing the source won't be a major source because they're all in bed with Obama. People responsible for electing this administration into office for another four years typically refuse to believe that the current government is as crooked as any of them have been in the past. There is something to be said about the great integrety of people who will admit when they've farked up. Libs just won't do that - and usually because they're uninformed.

When the libs don't like a story, they criticize the source - knowing the source won't be a major source because they're all in bed with Obama. People responsible for electing this administration into office for another four years typically refuse to believe that the current government is as crooked as any of them have been in the past. There is something to be said about the great integrety of people who will admit when they've farked up. Libs just won't do that - and usually because they're uninformed.

mjm323s:Question for ya: if this was a banking CEO that was caught doing some illegal stuff and after they resigned the Huffington Post found some additional evidence that would help in pressing charges, would that be different?

The investigative committee already had this evidence. Judicial Watch is only getting this after a FOIA request back in August for documents dating back to 2009. You really think Issa overlooked this while JW has broken this case wide open?

jaytkay:skullkrusher: Doctor Funkenstein: skullkrusher: jaytkay: "...according to the Washington Examiner and a host of media sources..."

[imageshack.us image 250x272]

it's like a badge of honor for you guys. Amazing.

To weigh the merits of the source before making judgment to better ensure that the information we're considering isn't tantamount to the testimony of a third grader that claims to be good friends with Sasquatch. Yeah, kinda.

not really - actually, what a thinking person does is find facts to refute the information. What you do is pretend the information doesn't exist because it is from a biased source.It doesn't make the information go away nor does it make it any more or less true.

So go find us the "host of media sources" reporting this story and show how they independently confirmed the facts.

Funny, I actually did this, just to confirm what I suspected. The level of derp in the sources reporting this are all there:

The one article that seemed to have a reputable source, Washington Post, has no mention of "breaking the law".

So, yes, there is merit to waiting for a reputable source to report such news. It's not a "Badge of Honor". It's a way of filtering out shiatty information. You know, just like all of the shiatty information that gets hammered into these Tea Party nuts over and over again as they indoctorate themselves with their echo chamber. Once they are that far gone, there are so many layers of lies that it's almost impossible to convince them that they are wrong on so many fronts.

Cataholic:an exempt organization will have its information published once their exemption is approved.

US Code 11.3.9.12 (12-28-2007)Public Inspection of Certain Information ReturnsThe information included on certain annual information returns of organizations and trusts that are exempt or seeking exempt status, or information required to be filed therewith, is required to be made available for public inspection under the authority of IRC § 6104(b).

mjm323s:You use a very broad brush, seem incapable of comprehension and fail to realize that there are two fringe sides but the majority of us lie somewhere in the middle, (not you of course). This is not an old story. There is an ongoing Congressional investigation when it last ended more information was requested. Does that make sense?

If you're giving the right the benefit of a doubt, you're the one who lacks comprehension. The right embraced their fringe and are dragging the entire middle rightward with them.Congressional investigation? You mean the Congress with Darryl Issa, who "oops" conveniently forgot to mention the IRS scrutinized someone besides Tea Party groups.Like I just said to sprawl, this isn't shrewd criticism about tightening up IRS info-transfer procedure, it's another flavor of Obama witchhunt, Like I said to you, that's obvious from the first farking sentence.

Cataholic:There is information on Form 1024 (and 1023) which would be categorized as return information under IRC §6103.

Wrong. I linked the definition upthread. I'll repost it here, since you seemed to have missed it:

The term "return information" means-(A) a taxpayer's identity, the nature, source, or amount of his income, payments, receipts, deductions, exemptions, credits, assets, liabilities, net worth, tax liability, tax withheld, deficiencies, overassessments, or tax payments, whether the taxpayer's return was, is being, or will be examined or subject to other investigation or processing, or any other data, received by, recorded by, prepared by, furnished to, or collected by the Secretary with respect to a return or with respect to the determination of the existence, or possible existence, of liability (or the amount thereof) of any person under this title for any tax, penalty, interest, fine, forfeiture, or other imposition, or offense,

The 1024 is not an information return - or a return of any kind, it's an application. The important thing here is reason for collection - it defines a certain set of data as well as the purpose for obtaining that data as the two part definition.

Sergeant Grumbles:sprawl's info may decisively prove the article wrong, but at this point, that's more scrutiny than it deserves.

Well not really. It could be a violation of privacy laws or other laws regarding confidentiality of applications, so there could be a crime in the documents. But I just can't see how it's that specific crime. JW's website stated this in their announcement:

Initial news reports, when word of some of these IRS-FEC emails first surfaced in August 2013, raised a variety of legal issues. One was the fact that Lerner was supplying confidential information concerning the tax exempt application status of conservative organizations. Another was the fact that the inquiries regarding AFF made by the FEC attorneys in February 2009 to Lerner occurred before the FEC commissioners had voted on whether to investigate AFF (the FEC later voted not to investigate AFF). A third was the appearance of collusion between government agencies with an apparently anti-conservative bias. The new in-depth emails obtained by Judicial Watch seem to confirm that the possible collusion between the IRS and the FEC may have been far more extensive than first indicated, particularly in view of allegations that, prior to joining the IRS, Lerner's tenure as head of the Enforcement Office at the Federal Election Commission (FEC) also was marked by what appeared to be politically motivated harassment of conservative groups.

It's kind of like how the IRS investigation of tea party groups was actually A Problem, just not The Problem that the right wing shiat their huggies over.

sprawl's info may decisively prove the article wrong, but at this point, that's more scrutiny than it deserves.Guess the Obamacare rollout isn't getting enough traction? They're back to Benghazi and the IRS.

Thanks. I swear, when I asked, a search for "Lerner" on the site didn't turn up the link, but it does now.

Anyway, yeah, in answer to your question - this is clearly under the "blog" section, and it only references the claims made by Judicial Watch, so, yes. That would pretty much be within the scope of "conservative media".

mjm323s:The majority of Farkers on here with their blind following and defending of the democrats is really embarrassing.

The right is so anti-everything-Obama-does, right down to condiment choice, that simply disagreeing with them makes you look like an Obama cultist.It won't matter whether you support Obama on any particular thing or not. The right will have spun it so entirely wrongly and out of proportion to paint Obama in as bad a light as possible, so you have no choice but to refute the derp in any argument you make. This very farking article does it in the first farking sentence. "Obama administration employee" heavily implies as if this were Obama's appointee, instead of the reality that Lerner is a Bush appointee of an independent government agency.

And this has been going on for years. Story after story. Lie after farking lie. If people automatically assume them to be untrustworthy, it's their own fault. If people discount their testimony out of hand, it's their own fault. If Obama gets a free pass on something because of this attitude, it is still their own farking fault.

RyogaM:I'll wait for an indictment to be made before I'll even try to independently determine the legality or illegality of the acts alleged, and I'm an attorney. Good luck to all you non-lawyer, internet investigators in your attempt to determine what laws were violated by which acts by which parties. You're going to need it.

As a lawyer I have no doubt you understand the law better than I. But as a taxpayer I would really hope that it is pretty cut and dry that you don't share personal tax information. Seems simple enough.

MFAWG:skullkrusher: Doctor Funkenstein: skullkrusher: jaytkay: "...according to the Washington Examiner and a host of media sources..."

[imageshack.us image 250x272]

it's like a badge of honor for you guys. Amazing.

To weigh the merits of the source before making judgment to better ensure that the information we're considering isn't tantamount to the testimony of a third grader that claims to be good friends with Sasquatch. Yeah, kinda.

not really - actually, what a thinking person does is find facts to refute the information. What you do is pretend the information doesn't exist because it is from a biased source.It doesn't make the information go away nor does it make it any more or less true.

The problem is that the conservative media empire keeps using itself to independently corroborate stories that turn out to be bogus. And this has been going of for years.

You can also find this news on "The Hill" website. Is that considered conservative media?... The majority of Farkers on here with their blind following and defending of the democrats is really embarrassing. Lerner was appointed by Bush in 2006, this does not make this disregard for law anything less than what it is, a felony.

The crap about, Snowden, the source, or the headline to discredit the information really just misses the point and makes you look like petulant whiners that are incapable of thinking objectively.

skullkrusher:hey, at least you actually looked at the facts to make this determination.

After this sort of thing happens often enough with Tea Party claims, people start jumping to the conclusion without taking the trouble. Rigorously speaking, that's sloppy; contrariwise, when both error and investigative effort involve finite costs, it's also an efficient rule of thumb.

US Code 11.3.9.12 (12-28-2007)Public Inspection of Certain Information ReturnsThe information included on certain annual information returns of organizations and trusts that are exempt or seeking exempt status, or information required to be filed therewith, is required to be made available for public inspection under the authority of IRC § 6104(b).

skullkrusher:verbal_jizm: skullkrusher: hey, at least you actually looked at the facts to make this determination.

I'm curious. When Alex Jones goes on a bender about FEMA camps and black helicopters, do you ask yourself, "Hmmm. Maybe he's got a point this time."

if he actually presents source documents for his claims, I'll take a look at the source documents for the insight into his insanity at the very least. I won't see a link to the source docs posted on the alexjones domain and refuse to look at objective information because of where it lives

There is an enormous flow of information flowing from the right wing echo chamber. I don't have the ability to speed read and process all of that (let alone 180 pages) to glean any grist from the vast amount of bullshiat. I have a difficult enough time keeping up with my discipline alone. That's why we have professional journalists (the few that remain), prosecutors, and unbiased experts to sift through the mess for us. Yes, it makes it easier to be mislead because it depends on the integrity of others but the only other option is to be overwhelmed with bullshiat.

skullkrusher:HeadLever: dookdookdook: TFA is an almost-factless outragegasm linking to another outragegasm which in turn links to a 176 page .pdf document that I have no intention spending 3 hours examining in detail to determine just exactly how full of shiat subby et. al. is.

So it is fact-less even though it supplies the supporting documents that you are not going to read. Are you for real?

it's hard to believe that they are sometimes, isn't it? But *we're* the low-information wingnuts...

Is this really the blog post you want to die on? Did you read it? I did, it is FARKING HILARIOUSLY TERRIBLE. I have zero confidence that the person who wrote this... thing... can read the Sunday funnies, let alone 160 pages of emails written by adults and the relevant legislation. I think I will hold off on the outrage until this is tackled by someone with a press pass.

skullkrusher:hey, at least you actually looked at the facts to make this determination.

Word. I wasn't trying to be an asshole, so I hope it didn't come off that way. It's just that right wing information sources are so dreadfully immune to facts (not that other ones aren't as well) that it's tough to take anything they say on face value. That said, here's a GIF of the butt fumble, because that brightens everyone's day...well, except for Sanchez, I guess.

a couple of clicks is all it took to get to the source of the info. Why don't you go through that and debunk the claims?

Done.

In the PDF you linked, we see the IRS shared details of an exemption application with the FEC (not tax returns as claimed by The Examiner).

Its public information.

US Code 11.3.9.12 (12-28-2007)Public Inspection of Certain Information ReturnsThe information included on certain annual information returns of organizations and trusts that are exempt or seeking exempt status, or information required to be filed therewith, is required to be made available for public inspection under the authority of IRC § 6104(b).

skullkrusher:jaytkay: "...according to the Washington Examiner and a host of media sources..."

[imageshack.us image 250x272]

it's like a badge of honor for you guys. Amazing.

Skull, I got to be honest. You're not always retarded. You're not a stupid person.

How many times must a source be full of unqualified bullshiat before you dismiss them entirely? 100 times in a row? 1000? Do you pick up a copy of the Enquirer in the grocery store every week and say to yourself, "Hey, it might be real this time!"

HeadLever:dookdookdook: TFA is an almost-factless outragegasm linking to another outragegasm which in turn links to a 176 page .pdf document that I have no intention spending 3 hours examining in detail to determine just exactly how full of shiat subby et. al. is.

So it is fact-less even though it supplies the supporting documents that you are not going to read. Are you for real?

it's hard to believe that they are sometimes, isn't it? But *we're* the low-information wingnuts...

dookdookdook:TFA is an almost-factless outragegasm linking to another outragegasm which in turn links to a 176 page .pdf document that I have no intention spending 3 hours examining in detail to determine just exactly how full of shiat subby et. al. is.

So it is fact-less even though it supplies the supporting documents that you are not going to read. Are you for real?

skullkrusher:Doctor Funkenstein: skullkrusher: jaytkay: "...according to the Washington Examiner and a host of media sources..."

[imageshack.us image 250x272]

it's like a badge of honor for you guys. Amazing.

To weigh the merits of the source before making judgment to better ensure that the information we're considering isn't tantamount to the testimony of a third grader that claims to be good friends with Sasquatch. Yeah, kinda.

not really - actually, what a thinking person does is find facts to refute the information. What you do is pretend the information doesn't exist because it is from a biased source.It doesn't make the information go away nor does it make it any more or less true.

So go find us the "host of media sources" reporting this story and show how they independently confirmed the facts.

bigsteve3OOO:It hurts to admit that the progressive leadership is as dirty as the GOP. The worst part must be that they never pass any law that actually takes money from the rich and gives to the poor. Look at Obama care. The 1% are not impacted to the extent that the middle class person is. Why is that? Could it be that they work for the same masters as the GOP? I think so.

There isn't any "progressive" leaders in the Congress... except maybe Bernie Sanders. That's why constant cries of "socialism" are so pathetic. No one wants a socialistic society in the U.S., and that includes Sanders. Intelegent social programs, yes, Socialism or Socialism by force (Communism), no.